Creation science

@phdthesis{bates1976christian1,
    author = "Bates, V. L",
    title = "Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education",
    year = "1976",
    publisher = "A Study of the Creation Science Movement [Ph.D. dissert.]: University of California, Davis",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement [Ph.D. dissert.]: University of California, Davis.}"
}

@misc{lewin1982where2,
    author = "Lewin, R",
    title = "Where is the science in Creation science?",
    year = "1982",
    howpublished = "Science, v. 215, p. 142-146",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the science in Creation science?: Science, v. 215, p. 142-146.}"
}

@misc{vawter1983creationism3,
    author = "Vawter, B",
    title = "Creationism",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science: New York, Scribner's, p. 71-82",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science: New York, Scribner's, p. 71-82.}"
}

This paper attempts a sympathetic but critical understanding of creation-science and its attack on ‘normal science’ and the school curriculum. The claims of creationism to scientific status are examined from an unproblematic perspective on science and from that of several major contemporary theories of science. Questions of rights in a democracy are also considered. An understanding of the force of the creationist attack on science and the curriculum is sought through an examination of the social sources of fundamentalism. Creation-science is seen as an attempt to restore the unity of science and belief in a society where instrumental and normative knowledge have fractured and social cohesion and community are weakened. Three cheers to the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the textbooks and an account of Genesis included (but I know that they would become as chauvinistic and totalitarian as scientists are today when given the chance to run society all by themselves. Ideologies are marvellous when used in the company of other ideologies. They become boring and doctrinaire as soon as their merits lead to the removal of their opponents.)—(Feyerabend, 1981, p. 163)

@article{knight1985creationscience,
    author = "Knight, John",
    title = "Creation-Science, Evolution-Science, and Education: Anything Goes?",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Australian Journal of Education",
    abstract = "This paper attempts a sympathetic but critical understanding of creation-science and its attack on ‘normal science’ and the school curriculum. The claims of creationism to scientific status are examined from an unproblematic perspective on science and from that of several major contemporary theories of science. Questions of rights in a democracy are also considered. An understanding of the force of the creationist attack on science and the curriculum is sought through an examination of the social sources of fundamentalism. Creation-science is seen as an attempt to restore the unity of science and belief in a society where instrumental and normative knowledge have fractured and social cohesion and community are weakened. Three cheers to the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the textbooks and an account of Genesis included (but I know that they would become as chauvinistic and totalitarian as scientists are today when given the chance to run society all by themselves. Ideologies are marvellous when used in the company of other ideologies. They become boring and doctrinaire as soon as their merits lead to the removal of their opponents.)—(Feyerabend, 1981, p. 163)",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418502900204",
    doi = "10.1177/000494418502900204",
    number = "2",
    openalex = "W1967681375",
    pages = "115-132",
    volume = "29",
    references = "doi1010079781349860562, doi101017cbo9780511621123, doi101111j146801491963tb00798x, doi1023072019397, doi102307jctt183p5d411, doi102307jctvw1d7dg9, openalexw2082507057, openalexw2492572670"
}

@article{singleton1986creationism,
    author = "Singleton, Rivers",
    title = "Creationism Is Not Dead Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy J. Peter Zetterberg Science and Creationism Ashley Montagu Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-Science Roland Mushat Frye",
    year = "1986",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1310262",
    doi = "10.2307/1310262",
    number = "6",
    openalex = "W2322414976",
    pages = "390-391",
    volume = "36"
}

Fundamentalist Christian sects have always regarded evolutionary theory as, at best, misguided. After some years of relative inactivity, the fundamentalist lobby is now insisting that if evolution is to be taught in school science classes, then 'creation science' (the biblical story of creation according to Genesis) should be taught – in a positive way – at the same time. A survey of newly enrolled university students in Queensland, Australia, indicated that about a quarter of them had indeed been taught creationist theories in high school science classes. This exposure evidently did not make them any likelier to adopt a consistent creationist viewpoint, but greatly increased their tendency to exhibit Orwellian double-think – to believe highly contradictory aspects of both scenarios simultaneously. Students with strong religious beliefs, not necessarily fundamentalist, and those with no religious affiliation at all were less likely to exhibit this sort of confusion than those who acknowledged affiliation with a recognized religion but said their religious beliefs were unimportant to them. Students with consistent creationist beliefs formed a very small minority and were almost all affiliated with a small number of fundamentalist sects.

@article{doi101179isr1987124324,
    author = "Jones, Rhondda",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism The Consequences of an Analysis for Education",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Interdisciplinary Science Reviews",
    abstract = "Fundamentalist Christian sects have always regarded evolutionary theory as, at best, misguided. After some years of relative inactivity, the fundamentalist lobby is now insisting that if evolution is to be taught in school science classes, then 'creation science' (the biblical story of creation according to Genesis) should be taught – in a positive way – at the same time. A survey of newly enrolled university students in Queensland, Australia, indicated that about a quarter of them had indeed been taught creationist theories in high school science classes. This exposure evidently did not make them any likelier to adopt a consistent creationist viewpoint, but greatly increased their tendency to exhibit Orwellian double-think – to believe highly contradictory aspects of both scenarios simultaneously. Students with strong religious beliefs, not necessarily fundamentalist, and those with no religious affiliation at all were less likely to exhibit this sort of confusion than those who acknowledged affiliation with a recognized religion but said their religious beliefs were unimportant to them. Students with consistent creationist beliefs formed a very small minority and were almost all affiliated with a small number of fundamentalist sects.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1179/isr.1987.12.4.324",
    doi = "10.1179/isr.1987.12.4.324",
    openalex = "W2072370883"
}

@article{doi10230740249853,
    author = "Provine, William B. and Larson, Edward J.",
    title = "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Academe",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/40249853",
    doi = "10.2307/40249853",
    openalex = "W2801744105"
}

@article{giddings1987scientists,
    author = "Giddings, Luther Val",
    title = "Scientists on Creationism Scientists Confront Creationism Laurie R. Godfrey W. W. Norton Creationism, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case M. C. La Follette Science and Creationism Ashley Montagu The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools Dorothy Nelkin Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation-Evolution Controversy David B. Wilson Evolution vs. Creationism: The Public Education Controversy J. Peter Zetterburg",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "BioScience",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1310179",
    doi = "10.2307/1310179",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2333955443",
    pages = "70-74",
    volume = "37"
}

Abstract. The logical relationships between the ideas of evolution and of special creation are explored here in the context of a recent paper by Alvin Plantinga claiming that from the perspective of biblical religion it is more likely than not that God acted in a “special” way at certain crucial moments in the long process whereby life developed on earth. I argue against this thesis, asking first under what circumstances the Bible might be thought relevant to an issue of broadly scientific concern. I go on to outline some of the arguments supporting the thesis of common ancestry, and argue finally that from the theistic perspective, special creation ought to be regarded as, if anything, less rather than more likely than its evolutionary alternative.

@article{doi101111j146797441993tb01036x,
    author = "Mullin, Ernan Mc",
    title = "EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION",
    year = "1993",
    journal = "Zygon®",
    abstract = "Abstract. The logical relationships between the ideas of evolution and of special creation are explored here in the context of a recent paper by Alvin Plantinga claiming that from the perspective of biblical religion it is more likely than not that God acted in a “special” way at certain crucial moments in the long process whereby life developed on earth. I argue against this thesis, asking first under what circumstances the Bible might be thought relevant to an issue of broadly scientific concern. I go on to outline some of the arguments supporting the thesis of common ancestry, and argue finally that from the theistic perspective, special creation ought to be regarded as, if anything, less rather than more likely than its evolutionary alternative.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1993.tb01036.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9744.1993.tb01036.x",
    openalex = "W2124737512",
    references = "doi10230740249853"
}

It is argued that creation science education, because of its conservatism, has become accepted as a quiet presence in Australian education. The authors demonstrate, via an examination of the social studies and science components of a creation science education program, how these programs are at odds with widely accepted views on education in Australia and do not comply with requirements for registration of non-government schools, as set out by the Australian Education Council. Moreover the wider issue of creation science has been pushed aside as ‘too hard’ by Australian educators. It is argued that there is evidence to question seriously this narrow fundamentalist education operating in some Australian schools.

@article{doi101177000494419303700305,
    author = "Speck, Cathy and Prideaux, David",
    title = "Fundamentalist Education and Creation Science",
    year = "1993",
    journal = "Australian Journal of Education",
    abstract = "It is argued that creation science education, because of its conservatism, has become accepted as a quiet presence in Australian education. The authors demonstrate, via an examination of the social studies and science components of a creation science education program, how these programs are at odds with widely accepted views on education in Australia and do not comply with requirements for registration of non-government schools, as set out by the Australian Education Council. Moreover the wider issue of creation science has been pushed aside as ‘too hard’ by Australian educators. It is argued that there is evidence to question seriously this narrow fundamentalist education operating in some Australian schools.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/000494419303700305",
    doi = "10.1177/000494419303700305",
    openalex = "W1992534096",
    references = "doi101007bf03219456, doi1010800142569900110106, doi101177002196578302600303, doi101179isr1987124324, doi102307974457, knight1985creationscience"
}

Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index

@book{openalexw603845538,
    author = "Numbers, Ronald L.",
    title = "The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design",
    year = "1993",
    abstract = "Introduction to the Expanded Edition Introduction 1. Creationism in the Age of Darwin 2. George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist 3. Creationism in the Fundamentalist Controversy 4. Scientific Creationists in the Age of Bryan 5. George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism 6. The Religion and Science Association 7. The Deluge Geology Society 8. Evangelicals and Evolution in Great Britain 9. Evangelicals and Evolution in North America 10. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Henry M. Morris, and The Genesis Flood 11. The Creation Research Society 12. Creation Science and Scientific Creationism 13. Deception and Discrimination 14. Creation Research Institutes 15. Creationism in the Churches 16. The Appeal of Creationism at Home and Abroad 17. Intelligent Design 18. Creationism Goes Global Notes Acknowledgments Index",
    openalex = "W603845538"
}

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.1 I. INTRODUCTION Over seventy-five years after the impassioned debate between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow echoed through a hot Tennessee courtroom,2 the controversial confrontation over science, religion, law, and education can still be heard in legislative halls, courtrooms, schools, and homes across the nation. The now infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 19253 brought the debate between religious fundamentalism and modern day scientific theory to the forefront and sparked twenty state legislatures to consider measures to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools.4 Nearly a century later, the dispute rages on. Twenty states considered anti-evolution measures in both the 1920s and the 1990s.5 Whether the incorporation of certain religiously motivated theories of the earth's origin into public schools violates the fundamental separation between church and state is a question that continues to plague this country today.6 Since Charles Darwin first introduced the concept of evolution7 in his 1859 book The Origin of Species,8 Christian fundamentalists have rejected this scientific theory, contending that it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible and its teachings that all living species were created by divine power.9 This Biblical-based tenet regarding the earth's origin is commonly known as and its followers, creationists,10 have developed various strategies that endeavor to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools and incorporate creationism into science curricula.11 Despite Supreme Court jurisprudence that laws banning and criminalizing the teaching of evolution,12 and laws mandating the teaching of creationism,13 violate the Establishment Clause,14 creationists continue to develop new tactics to voice their opinions and beliefs. Currently, Christian fundamentalists are using three strategies designed to remove evolution and, in certain instances, incorporate creationist theory into public school curricula. One strategy is to attempt to remove evolution from state science curricula, and correspondingly, from state-mandated tests. 15 Another strategy that creationists have employed is the use of a disclaimer,16 read before teaching evolution, to caution students that evolutionary theory is not to be taken as fact and is not intended to discount other beliefs that they may have regarding the earth's origin.17 Thirdly, legislatures across the nation have enacted statutes requiring that evolution be taught as a theory, not a fact.18 The success of this legislation has fomented a new response to evolution known as Intelligent Design.19 This latest movement encourages teachers to present the controversy between Darwinism and creationism, and then point to evolution's inability to provide all scientific answers.20 The proponents of these three recent strategies have justified their actions as legal by relying on certain language in Supreme Court precedent suggesting that states and local school boards are constitutionally permitted to control their own curriculum as long as they do not require that the curriculum conform to one religious viewpoint.21 Many creationist supporters claim that because there are significant gaps in the theory of evolution, allowing the presentation of alternative theories merely provides students with an even-handed look at the legitimate scientific controversy.22 While this assertion is correct, the implicit religious message behind the latest creationist tactics directly controverts basic First Amendment ideals.23 Thus, despite any purported secular purpose of promoting academic freedom, the Court must consider carefully the constitutional implications of permitting these strategies to continue. …

@article{openalexw347974875,
    author = "Reule, Deborah A.",
    title = "The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools",
    year = "2001",
    journal = "Vanderbilt law review",
    abstract = "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that... from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.1 I. INTRODUCTION Over seventy-five years after the impassioned debate between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow echoed through a hot Tennessee courtroom,2 the controversial confrontation over science, religion, law, and education can still be heard in legislative halls, courtrooms, schools, and homes across the nation. The now infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 19253 brought the debate between religious fundamentalism and modern day scientific theory to the forefront and sparked twenty state legislatures to consider measures to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools.4 Nearly a century later, the dispute rages on. Twenty states considered anti-evolution measures in both the 1920s and the 1990s.5 Whether the incorporation of certain religiously motivated theories of the earth's origin into public schools violates the fundamental separation between church and state is a question that continues to plague this country today.6 Since Charles Darwin first introduced the concept of evolution7 in his 1859 book The Origin of Species,8 Christian fundamentalists have rejected this scientific theory, contending that it conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible and its teachings that all living species were created by divine power.9 This Biblical-based tenet regarding the earth's origin is commonly known as and its followers, creationists,10 have developed various strategies that endeavor to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools and incorporate creationism into science curricula.11 Despite Supreme Court jurisprudence that laws banning and criminalizing the teaching of evolution,12 and laws mandating the teaching of creationism,13 violate the Establishment Clause,14 creationists continue to develop new tactics to voice their opinions and beliefs. Currently, Christian fundamentalists are using three strategies designed to remove evolution and, in certain instances, incorporate creationist theory into public school curricula. One strategy is to attempt to remove evolution from state science curricula, and correspondingly, from state-mandated tests. 15 Another strategy that creationists have employed is the use of a disclaimer,16 read before teaching evolution, to caution students that evolutionary theory is not to be taken as fact and is not intended to discount other beliefs that they may have regarding the earth's origin.17 Thirdly, legislatures across the nation have enacted statutes requiring that evolution be taught as a theory, not a fact.18 The success of this legislation has fomented a new response to evolution known as Intelligent Design.19 This latest movement encourages teachers to present the controversy between Darwinism and creationism, and then point to evolution's inability to provide all scientific answers.20 The proponents of these three recent strategies have justified their actions as legal by relying on certain language in Supreme Court precedent suggesting that states and local school boards are constitutionally permitted to control their own curriculum as long as they do not require that the curriculum conform to one religious viewpoint.21 Many creationist supporters claim that because there are significant gaps in the theory of evolution, allowing the presentation of alternative theories merely provides students with an even-handed look at the legitimate scientific controversy.22 While this assertion is correct, the implicit religious message behind the latest creationist tactics directly controverts basic First Amendment ideals.23 Thus, despite any purported secular purpose of promoting academic freedom, the Court must consider carefully the constitutional implications of permitting these strategies to continue. …",
    url = "https://openalex.org/W347974875",
    openalex = "W347974875"
}

"In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality." "Highlighting modern-day partisans as divergent as Richard Dawkins and Left Behind authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Ruse's book takes on the assumptions of controversialists of every stripe and belief and offers to all a new and productive way of understanding this unifying, if often bitter, quest."--BOOK JACKET.

@book{doi1041599780674042971,
    author = "Ruse, Michael",
    title = "The Evolution-Creation Struggle",
    year = "2005",
    booktitle = "Harvard University Press eBooks",
    abstract = {"In his latest book, Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality." "Highlighting modern-day partisans as divergent as Richard Dawkins and Left Behind authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Ruse's book takes on the assumptions of controversialists of every stripe and belief and offers to all a new and productive way of understanding this unifying, if often bitter, quest."--BOOK JACKET.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042971",
    doi = "10.4159/9780674042971",
    openalex = "W2113135468"
}

FOREWORD: The Unmetabolized Darwin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION: The Pillars of Creationism PART I: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism CHAPTER 1. Science: Truth Without Certainty CHAPTER 2. Evolution CHAPTER 3. Beliefs: Religion, Creationism, and Naturalism PART II: A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy CHAPTER 4. Before Darwin to the Twentieth Century CHAPTER 5. Eliminating Evolution, Inventing Creation Science CHAPTER 6. Neocreationism CHAPTER 7. Testing Intelligent Design and Evidence Against Evolution in the Courts PART III: Selections from the Literature CHAPTER 8. Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology CHAPTER 9. Patterns and Processes of Biological Evolution CHAPTER 10. Legal Issues CHAPTER 11. Educational Issues CHAPTER 12. Religious Issues CHAPTER 13. The Nature of Science CHAPTER 14. Creationism and Evolution in the Media REFERENCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION NAME INDEX SUBJECT INDEX

@article{doi105860choice425849,
    title = "Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "FOREWORD: The Unmetabolized Darwin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION: The Pillars of Creationism PART I: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism CHAPTER 1. Science: Truth Without Certainty CHAPTER 2. Evolution CHAPTER 3. Beliefs: Religion, Creationism, and Naturalism PART II: A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy CHAPTER 4. Before Darwin to the Twentieth Century CHAPTER 5. Eliminating Evolution, Inventing Creation Science CHAPTER 6. Neocreationism CHAPTER 7. Testing Intelligent Design and Evidence Against Evolution in the Courts PART III: Selections from the Literature CHAPTER 8. Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology CHAPTER 9. Patterns and Processes of Biological Evolution CHAPTER 10. Legal Issues CHAPTER 11. Educational Issues CHAPTER 12. Religious Issues CHAPTER 13. The Nature of Science CHAPTER 14. Creationism and Evolution in the Media REFERENCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION NAME INDEX SUBJECT INDEX",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-5849",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.42-5849",
    openalex = "W1570171665"
}

As part of the continuing series of the Reviewing Policy section, this article examines some of the recent literature on the creation-evolution controversy. These controversies are placed within a larger analysis of the growth of authoritarian populist movements in the United States. The article then focuses attention on debates both over a number of arguments surrounding the ways in which intelligent design had been justified and surrounding some of the dangers of possible arrogance that have been associated with the history of the popularization of evolutionary perspectives. The author then offers some strategic suggestions for going forward.

@article{apple2008evolution,
    author = "Apple, Michael W.",
    title = "Evolution Versus Creationism in Education",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Educational Policy",
    abstract = "As part of the continuing series of the Reviewing Policy section, this article examines some of the recent literature on the creation-evolution controversy. These controversies are placed within a larger analysis of the growth of authoritarian populist movements in the United States. The article then focuses attention on debates both over a number of arguments surrounding the ways in which intelligent design had been justified and surrounding some of the dangers of possible arrogance that have been associated with the history of the popularization of evolutionary perspectives. The author then offers some strategic suggestions for going forward.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807312466",
    doi = "10.1177/0895904807312466",
    number = "2",
    pages = "327-335",
    volume = "22"
}

@article{ayala2008science,
    author = "Ayala, Francisco J.",
    title = "Science, evolution, and creationism",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711608105",
    doi = "10.1073/pnas.0711608105",
    number = "1",
    openalex = "W2149113029",
    pages = "3-4",
    volume = "105",
    references = "doi101016jydbio200801021, doi101038nature04637, doi101038nature04639, doi1023074444260, doi105860choice450853"
}

@misc{crossref2008science,
    title = "Science, Evolution, and Creationism",
    year = "2008",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.17226/11876",
    doi = "10.17226/11876",
    openalex = "W4214925600"
}

We conducted a national survey of likely U.S. voters to examine acceptance of evolution, attitudes toward science and scientists, and opportunities for promoting science education. Most respondents accepted that life evolved, many accepted that it evolved through natural processes, and more favored teaching evolution than creationism or intelligent design in science classes. The majority ranked developing medicines and curing diseases as the most important contributions of science to society, and they found promoting understanding of evolutionary science's contribution to medicine to be a convincing reason to teach evolution. Respondents viewed scientists, teachers, and medical professionals favorably, and most were interested in hearing from these groups about science, including evolution. These data suggest that the scientific community has an important role to play in encouraging public support for science education.

@article{doi101016jydbio200801021,
    title = "You say you want an evolution? A role for scientists in science education",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Developmental Biology",
    abstract = "We conducted a national survey of likely U.S. voters to examine acceptance of evolution, attitudes toward science and scientists, and opportunities for promoting science education. Most respondents accepted that life evolved, many accepted that it evolved through natural processes, and more favored teaching evolution than creationism or intelligent design in science classes. The majority ranked developing medicines and curing diseases as the most important contributions of science to society, and they found promoting understanding of evolutionary science's contribution to medicine to be a convincing reason to teach evolution. Respondents viewed scientists, teachers, and medical professionals favorably, and most were interested in hearing from these groups about science, including evolution. These data suggest that the scientific community has an important role to play in encouraging public support for science education.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.01.021",
    doi = "10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.01.021",
    openalex = "W4232833979"
}

Despite many legal and legislative decisions, a new study shows that one in eight high school biology instructors teach their students that creationism or intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolutionary biology.

@article{doi101371journalpbio0060124,
    author = "Berkman, Michael and Pacheco, Julianna Sandell and Plutzer, Eric",
    title = "Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "PLoS Biology",
    abstract = "Despite many legal and legislative decisions, a new study shows that one in eight high school biology instructors teach their students that creationism or intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolutionary biology.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124",
    doi = "10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124",
    openalex = "W2057308114",
    references = "doi101002tea20027, doi101126science1126746, doi1016620002768520020640021hsbtks20co2, doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2, doi1023072998636, doi1041599780674042971, doi10540800221368432102, openalexw1540827035, openalexw1561945099, openalexw2920842814"
}

The teaching of evolution in public schools has been a central element in the nation's “culture wars” since the 1920s and remains a contentious issue today. Content standards for the teaching of biology have been flashpoints for conflict, with well publicized battles occurring in state governments, in federal courts, and in local school districts. We show that a full understanding of evolution politics at the state level must simultaneously account for three important features. First, cultural politics typically includes an important role for public opinion. Second, scientists and their professional organizations have actively sought a monopoly on defining what is and is not science by marginalizing their uncredentialled opponents and by erecting boundaries that buffer science policy from the influence of politics and public opinion. Third, in the American federal system courts rarely settle cultural issues but merely narrow the space within which politics can operate. In accounting for these features, we explain why court victories for science have had only limited impacts and provide a model for understanding other issues—such as sex education, stem cell research, and global warming—in which moral and ideological arguments may conflict with scientific consensus.

@article{doi101017s153759270999082x,
    author = "Berkman, Michael and Plutzer, Eric",
    title = "Scientific Expertise and the Culture War: Public Opinion and the Teaching of Evolution in the American States",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Perspectives on Politics",
    abstract = "The teaching of evolution in public schools has been a central element in the nation's “culture wars” since the 1920s and remains a contentious issue today. Content standards for the teaching of biology have been flashpoints for conflict, with well publicized battles occurring in state governments, in federal courts, and in local school districts. We show that a full understanding of evolution politics at the state level must simultaneously account for three important features. First, cultural politics typically includes an important role for public opinion. Second, scientists and their professional organizations have actively sought a monopoly on defining what is and is not science by marginalizing their uncredentialled opponents and by erecting boundaries that buffer science policy from the influence of politics and public opinion. Third, in the American federal system courts rarely settle cultural issues but merely narrow the space within which politics can operate. In accounting for these features, we explain why court victories for science have had only limited impacts and provide a model for understanding other issues—such as sex education, stem cell research, and global warming—in which moral and ideological arguments may conflict with scientific consensus.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s153759270999082x",
    doi = "10.1017/s153759270999082x",
    openalex = "W2143657314",
    references = "doi1041599780674042971, openalexw1561945099"
}

In January 2008, an interdisciplinary committee of leading scientists gathered for a news conference at the National Academies headquarters in Washington, DC. The purpose of the conference was to release Science, Evolution, and Creationism (National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine, 2008).1 As the news conference participants described, the booklet had been carefully designed to provide an updated account of evolutionary science that would be accessible to a diverse audience of school board members, journalists, teachers, activist parents, and clergy. Its contents covered three main topics: “Evolution and the Nature of Science,” “The Evidence for Biological Evolution,” and “Creationist Perspectives,” with the last section focusing on the scientific and legal arguments against the teaching of creationist perspectives in public schools. Committee member Bruce Alberts, editor of Science and past president of the National Academy of Science (NAS), told the audience, “Where evolution debates occur in the country, scientists and others call us for help and the major tool we provide is this booklet.” In an effort to ensure that the booklet would be accessible to diverse audiences, the committee commissioned focus groups and a national survey to gauge the extent of citizens’ understanding of the processes, nature, and limits of science. The committee also tested various “frames” or interpretative storylines that served as explanations for why alternatives to evolution were inappropriate for science classes (Labov & Pope, 2008). Although the committee had expected to find the most convincing storyline to be the authority of past legal decisions and the constitutional separation of Church and state, the data revealed that audiences were not as persuaded by this framing of the issue. Instead, somewhat surprisingly, the committee discovered that emphasizing evolutionary science as the modern building block for advances in medicine was the most effective frame for translating the importance of teaching evolution. The research also pointed to the effectiveness of reassuring the public that there was no conflict between teaching evolution and the beliefs of many religious traditions. Taking careful note of this feedback, the committee structured the 2008 revisionof the booklet to emphasize these two central frames; they also highlighted these frames in subsequent efforts to publicize the new edition (Labov & Pope, 2008). The National Academies’ innovative “audience-based” approach is part of an emerging paradigm shift in how the scientific community in the United States views public engagement. Left behind is the assumption that simply “informing the public” of scientific facts will meaningfully alter the perceptions of either policy makers or citizens. Instead, one can detect a growing recognition that communication is not simply a translation of facts-it is a negotiation of meaning (for more on this shift, see Chapter 1 of this book). In this light, science and its policy implications need to be communicated in ways that address an intended audience’s values, interests, and world views. Several decades of social science research on framing underpin this paradigm shift. On the topic of science communication in particular, work by Nisbet and colleagues has argued that there is nothing essentially unique about science policy debates, when compared to other political controversies. Given this interpretative reality, scientists-like any other actor in the policy process-must strategically “frame” their communications in a manner that connects with diverse audiences (cf., Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, 2003; Nisbet & Huge, 2006; Nisbet & Mooney, 2007).2 In that body of research, a consistent set of frames are identified and appear over and over again in science policy debates. The research suggests that these recurring frames offer an innovative public engagement technology to be harnessed by scientists, press officers, and organizations. As in the National Academies’ case, when target audiences have been carefully researched, the resulting messages can be true to the science, but also personally relevant and meaningful to a diverse array of publics. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to synthesize findings from previously published studies and articles that have focused on the framing of science for public consumption. Drawing on the cases of nuclear energy, evolution, and climate change, the chapter demonstrates the generalizable ways in which framing can drive the dynamics of science controversies. For researchers, the chapter offers careful conceptualization and identification of campaign strategies, media messages, and their influence. For scientists and communication professionals, the chapter highlights lessons for effective public engagement strategies-although these lessons are not without several important ethical and normative considerations.

@incollection{doi104324978020386763110,
    author = "Nisbet, Matthew C.",
    title = "Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement",
    year = "2009",
    abstract = "In January 2008, an interdisciplinary committee of leading scientists gathered for a news conference at the National Academies headquarters in Washington, DC. The purpose of the conference was to release Science, Evolution, and Creationism (National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine, 2008).1 As the news conference participants described, the booklet had been carefully designed to provide an updated account of evolutionary science that would be accessible to a diverse audience of school board members, journalists, teachers, activist parents, and clergy. Its contents covered three main topics: “Evolution and the Nature of Science,” “The Evidence for Biological Evolution,” and “Creationist Perspectives,” with the last section focusing on the scientific and legal arguments against the teaching of creationist perspectives in public schools. Committee member Bruce Alberts, editor of Science and past president of the National Academy of Science (NAS), told the audience, “Where evolution debates occur in the country, scientists and others call us for help and the major tool we provide is this booklet.” In an effort to ensure that the booklet would be accessible to diverse audiences, the committee commissioned focus groups and a national survey to gauge the extent of citizens’ understanding of the processes, nature, and limits of science. The committee also tested various “frames” or interpretative storylines that served as explanations for why alternatives to evolution were inappropriate for science classes (Labov \& Pope, 2008). Although the committee had expected to find the most convincing storyline to be the authority of past legal decisions and the constitutional separation of Church and state, the data revealed that audiences were not as persuaded by this framing of the issue. Instead, somewhat surprisingly, the committee discovered that emphasizing evolutionary science as the modern building block for advances in medicine was the most effective frame for translating the importance of teaching evolution. The research also pointed to the effectiveness of reassuring the public that there was no conflict between teaching evolution and the beliefs of many religious traditions. Taking careful note of this feedback, the committee structured the 2008 revisionof the booklet to emphasize these two central frames; they also highlighted these frames in subsequent efforts to publicize the new edition (Labov \& Pope, 2008). The National Academies’ innovative “audience-based” approach is part of an emerging paradigm shift in how the scientific community in the United States views public engagement. Left behind is the assumption that simply “informing the public” of scientific facts will meaningfully alter the perceptions of either policy makers or citizens. Instead, one can detect a growing recognition that communication is not simply a translation of facts-it is a negotiation of meaning (for more on this shift, see Chapter 1 of this book). In this light, science and its policy implications need to be communicated in ways that address an intended audience’s values, interests, and world views. Several decades of social science research on framing underpin this paradigm shift. On the topic of science communication in particular, work by Nisbet and colleagues has argued that there is nothing essentially unique about science policy debates, when compared to other political controversies. Given this interpretative reality, scientists-like any other actor in the policy process-must strategically “frame” their communications in a manner that connects with diverse audiences (cf., Nisbet, Brossard, \& Kroepsch, 2003; Nisbet \& Huge, 2006; Nisbet \& Mooney, 2007).2 In that body of research, a consistent set of frames are identified and appear over and over again in science policy debates. The research suggests that these recurring frames offer an innovative public engagement technology to be harnessed by scientists, press officers, and organizations. As in the National Academies’ case, when target audiences have been carefully researched, the resulting messages can be true to the science, but also personally relevant and meaningful to a diverse array of publics. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to synthesize findings from previously published studies and articles that have focused on the framing of science for public consumption. Drawing on the cases of nuclear energy, evolution, and climate change, the chapter demonstrates the generalizable ways in which framing can drive the dynamics of science controversies. For researchers, the chapter offers careful conceptualization and identification of campaign strategies, media messages, and their influence. For scientists and communication professionals, the chapter highlights lessons for effective public engagement strategies-although these lessons are not without several important ethical and normative considerations.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631-10",
    doi = "10.4324/9780203867631-10",
    openalex = "W123821658",
    references = "ayala2008science"
}

faculty=2.48 and students=1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society's evolution literacy.

@article{doi101007s120520100298x,
    author = "Paz‐y‐Miño‐C, Guillermo and Espinosa, Avelina",
    title = "New England Faculty and College Students Differ in Their Views About Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Religiosity",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "faculty=2.48 and students=1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society's evolution literacy.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0298-x",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-010-0298-x",
    openalex = "W2161636214",
    references = "apple2008evolution, crossref2007scientists, doi101002tea3660270503, doi101007s1097200790627, doi101007s1205200901757, doi101007s1205201002331, doi1010160016003257907664, doi10103828478, doi1010970000505319570700000032, doi101126science1126746, doi1023073498751, doi105860choice425849, doi105860choice473136, openalexw1582498952"
}

Abstract The goal of this study was to explore Christian biology‐related majors' perceptions of conflicts between evolution and their religious beliefs. This naturalistic study utilized a case study design of 15 undergraduate biology‐related majors at or recent biology‐related graduates from a mid‐western Christian university. The broad sources of data were interviews, course documents, and observations. Outcomes indicate that most participants were raised to believe in creationism, but came to accept evolution through evaluating evidence for evolution, negotiating the literalness of Genesis, recognizing evolution as a non‐salvation issue, and observing professors as Christian role models who accept evolution. This study lends heuristic insight to researchers and educators seeking to understand the complex processes by which Christian biology‐related majors approach learning about evolution. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 1026–1049, 2011

@article{doi101002tea20417,
    author = "Winslow, Mark William and Staver, John R. and Scharmann, Lawrence C.",
    title = "Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology‐related majors' search for reconciliation",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of Research in Science Teaching",
    abstract = "Abstract The goal of this study was to explore Christian biology‐related majors' perceptions of conflicts between evolution and their religious beliefs. This naturalistic study utilized a case study design of 15 undergraduate biology‐related majors at or recent biology‐related graduates from a mid‐western Christian university. The broad sources of data were interviews, course documents, and observations. Outcomes indicate that most participants were raised to believe in creationism, but came to accept evolution through evaluating evidence for evolution, negotiating the literalness of Genesis, recognizing evolution as a non‐salvation issue, and observing professors as Christian role models who accept evolution. This study lends heuristic insight to researchers and educators seeking to understand the complex processes by which Christian biology‐related majors approach learning about evolution. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 1026–1049, 2011",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20417",
    doi = "10.1002/tea.20417",
    openalex = "W2057847083",
    references = "ayala2008science, doi101002tea20337, doi1015365joce1601602013, doi105860choice442655, openalexw1569351806"
}

Introduction 1. Who should decide what children are taught? 2. The public speaks: 'teach both' 3. A nation divided by religion, education, and place 4. Is evolution fit for polite company?: science standards in the American states 5. Teachers and what they teach 6. State standards meet street level bureaucracy 7. When the personal becomes pedagogical 8. Teachers in their schools and communities 9. The battle for America's classrooms.

@article{doi105860choice486571,
    author = "Berkman, Michael B. 1960- and Plutzer, Eric 1958-",
    title = "Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America's classrooms",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Introduction 1. Who should decide what children are taught? 2. The public speaks: 'teach both' 3. A nation divided by religion, education, and place 4. Is evolution fit for polite company?: science standards in the American states 5. Teachers and what they teach 6. State standards meet street level bureaucracy 7. When the personal becomes pedagogical 8. Teachers in their schools and communities 9. The battle for America's classrooms.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-6571",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.48-6571",
    openalex = "W1967884940",
    references = "doi101086257839, doi101371journalpbio0060124, doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2, doi1023072074664, doi1023072095325, doi1023072655098, doi1023074444260, doi1041599780674042971, doi104324978020350598410, doi10540800221368432102, doi105860choice274796, doi107312grau91070013, larson1995the, openalexw1507004422, openalexw1561945099, openalexw2920842814"
}

@book{openalexw2900170453,
    author = "Haarsma, D. B. and Haarsma, Loren",
    title = "Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design",
    year = "2011",
    openalex = "W2900170453"
}

Public acceptance of evolution remains low in the United States relative to other Western countries. Although advocates for the scientific community often highlight the need for improved education to change public opinion, analyses of data from a national sample of American adults indicate that the effects of educational attainment on attitudes toward evolution and creationism are uneven and contingent upon religious identity. Consequently, higher education will only shift public attitudes toward evolution and away from support for teaching creationism in public schools for those who take non‐“literalist” interpretive stances on the Bible, or to the extent that it leads to fewer people with literalist religious identities.

@article{doi101111jssr12007,
    author = "Baker, Joseph O.",
    title = "Acceptance of Evolution and Support for Teaching Creationism in Public Schools: The Conditional Impact of Educational Attainment",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion",
    abstract = "Public acceptance of evolution remains low in the United States relative to other Western countries. Although advocates for the scientific community often highlight the need for improved education to change public opinion, analyses of data from a national sample of American adults indicate that the effects of educational attainment on attitudes toward evolution and creationism are uneven and contingent upon religious identity. Consequently, higher education will only shift public attitudes toward evolution and away from support for teaching creationism in public schools for those who take non‐“literalist” interpretive stances on the Bible, or to the extent that it leads to fewer people with literalist religious identities.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12007",
    doi = "10.1111/jssr.12007",
    openalex = "W1524285856",
    references = "doi105860choice365041"
}

Abstract The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, offers a “spatial sermon” to convince visitors to reject the theory of evolution in favor of Young Earth Creationism, a literal reading of the biblical creation story. The museum combines strategies from the journalistic discussion of the debate with the form of a conversion narrative. The goal of this embodied conversion narrative is to convince visitors that the evidence for creationism and evolution is equivalent and insufficient for deciding the issue, and the only way to adjudicate the issue is to accept what the museum's creators believe to be the transparent wisdom of the Bible.

@article{doi1014321rhetpublaffa1610001,
    author = "Lynch, John",
    title = "“Prepare to Believe”: The Creation Museum as Embodied Conversion Narrative",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Rhetoric and Public Affairs",
    abstract = "Abstract The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, offers a “spatial sermon” to convince visitors to reject the theory of evolution in favor of Young Earth Creationism, a literal reading of the biblical creation story. The museum combines strategies from the journalistic discussion of the debate with the form of a conversion narrative. The goal of this embodied conversion narrative is to convince visitors that the evidence for creationism and evolution is equivalent and insufficient for deciding the issue, and the only way to adjudicate the issue is to accept what the museum's creators believe to be the transparent wisdom of the Bible.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.16.1.0001",
    doi = "10.14321/rhetpublaffa.16.1.0001",
    openalex = "W1782758790",
    references = "doi10230740249853"
}

Background: There is a negative relationship between education and religiosity and a positive relationship between education and acceptance of evolution, but how this manifests in college students who differ in degree of religiosity and prior educational experiences is unclear. We focused our study on the relative importance of education and religion on evolution understanding for college students at a large, public university in the Deep South. Methods: We used a structural equation model incorporating both acceptance and knowledge of evolution to evaluate the relative influence of religion and education on evolution understanding of 2,999 surveyed students. We further focused on acceptance of evolution and academic level, college major, high school experience, religion, and religiosity. We conducted pre and post course evaluations in three biology classes, and finally we tested the relationships between the quality of K-12 state science standards and states' religiosity and educational attainment. Results: We found that the degree of religiosity mattered significantly more than education when predicting students' understanding of evolution. When we focused on acceptance of evolution only, students taught evolution or neither evolution nor creationism in high school had significantly higher acceptance than those taught both evolution and creationism or just creationism. Science majors always outscored non-science majors, and not religious students significantly outperformed religious students. Highly religious students were more likely to reject evolution even though they understood that the scientific community accepted the theory of evolution. Overall, students in two of three biology classes increased their acceptance of evolution, but only those students that seldom/never attended religious services improved. K-12 state science standard grades were significantly and negatively correlated with measures of state religiosity and significantly and positively correlated with measures of state educational attainment.

@article{doi101186s1205201400241,
    author = "Rissler, Leslie J. and Duncan, Sarah I. and Caruso, Nicholas M.",
    title = "The relative importance of religion and education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep South and state science standards across the United States",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "Background: There is a negative relationship between education and religiosity and a positive relationship between education and acceptance of evolution, but how this manifests in college students who differ in degree of religiosity and prior educational experiences is unclear. We focused our study on the relative importance of education and religion on evolution understanding for college students at a large, public university in the Deep South. Methods: We used a structural equation model incorporating both acceptance and knowledge of evolution to evaluate the relative influence of religion and education on evolution understanding of 2,999 surveyed students. We further focused on acceptance of evolution and academic level, college major, high school experience, religion, and religiosity. We conducted pre and post course evaluations in three biology classes, and finally we tested the relationships between the quality of K-12 state science standards and states' religiosity and educational attainment. Results: We found that the degree of religiosity mattered significantly more than education when predicting students' understanding of evolution. When we focused on acceptance of evolution only, students taught evolution or neither evolution nor creationism in high school had significantly higher acceptance than those taught both evolution and creationism or just creationism. Science majors always outscored non-science majors, and not religious students significantly outperformed religious students. Highly religious students were more likely to reject evolution even though they understood that the scientific community accepted the theory of evolution. Overall, students in two of three biology classes increased their acceptance of evolution, but only those students that seldom/never attended religious services improved. K-12 state science standard grades were significantly and negatively correlated with measures of state religiosity and significantly and positively correlated with measures of state educational attainment.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0024-1",
    doi = "10.1186/s12052-014-0024-1",
    openalex = "W2154810807",
    references = "doi101007s1205200901757, doi101037003329091072238, doi101038386435a0, doi10108010705519909540118, doi101111j204483171984tb00789x, doi101146annurevpsych511201, doi1011770049124192021002005, doi101371journalpbio0060124, doi101525bio200959510, doi1016620002768520050670457ttoeci20co2, doi1018637jssv048i02, doi1023072074955, doi1023072580595, doi10261816153922fe919c, doi105860choice425849, doi105860choice486571, openalexw312212258"
}

ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to describe high school students’ attitudes concerning evolution and creation, with a focus on (1) attitudes toward evolutionary theory, (2) attitudes toward the Biblical accounts of creation, (3) creationist beliefs, and (4) scientistic beliefs. Latent class analyses revealed seven attitude profiles in a sample of 1672 German high school students. In contrast with the prevailing focus on creationism in science education research, a scientistic attitude profile (22%) rather than a creationist attitude profile (4%) characterized the largest group in this sample. The remaining five profiles account for three‐fourths of the sample and describe a range of different positions, that is, noncreationist and nonscientistic positions. Moreover, the groups of students who belonged to different attitude profiles differed significantly in terms of further variables: (a) perception of conflict between science and theology, (b) attitudes toward science, (c) attitudes toward religion, (d) understanding of the nature of science, and (e) understanding of the nature of Christian theology. The benefit of the presented approach is discussed in the context of previous studies that focused on the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Because we found evidence for a wide variety of attitudes, implications for teaching and learning evolution are discussed.

@article{doi101002sce21226,
    author = "Konnemann, Christiane and Asshoff, Roman and Hammann, Marcus",
    title = "Insights Into the Diversity of Attitudes Concerning Evolution and Creation: A Multidimensional Approach",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Science Education",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT The main aim of this paper is to describe high school students’ attitudes concerning evolution and creation, with a focus on (1) attitudes toward evolutionary theory, (2) attitudes toward the Biblical accounts of creation, (3) creationist beliefs, and (4) scientistic beliefs. Latent class analyses revealed seven attitude profiles in a sample of 1672 German high school students. In contrast with the prevailing focus on creationism in science education research, a scientistic attitude profile (22\%) rather than a creationist attitude profile (4\%) characterized the largest group in this sample. The remaining five profiles account for three‐fourths of the sample and describe a range of different positions, that is, noncreationist and nonscientistic positions. Moreover, the groups of students who belonged to different attitude profiles differed significantly in terms of further variables: (a) perception of conflict between science and theology, (b) attitudes toward science, (c) attitudes toward religion, (d) understanding of the nature of science, and (e) understanding of the nature of Christian theology. The benefit of the presented approach is discussed in the context of previous studies that focused on the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Because we found evidence for a wide variety of attitudes, implications for teaching and learning evolution are discussed.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21226",
    doi = "10.1002/sce.21226",
    openalex = "W2299282477",
    references = "doi101007s1205201103710"
}

Students' religious beliefs and religious cultures have been shown to be the main factors predicting whether they will accept evolution, yet college biology instructors teaching evolution at public institutions often have religious beliefs and cultures that are different from their religious students. This difference in religious beliefs and cultures may be a barrier to effective evolution education. To explore when evolution instructors have similar religious cultures and beliefs as their students, we interviewed 32 evolution instructors at Christian universities nationwide about their practices and experiences teaching evolution. Christian university instructors emphasized teaching for acceptance of evolution while holding an inclusive teaching philosophy that they perceived led to a safe environment for students. Additionally, almost all instructors reported using practices that have been shown to increase student acceptance of evolution and reduce student conflict between evolution and religion. Further, we found that these instructors perceived that their own religious backgrounds have guided their decisions to teach evolution to their students in a culturally competent way. We discuss how these data, combined with past research literature on public college instructors, indicate that cultural competence could be a useful new framework for promoting effective evolution education in higher education institutions.

@article{doi101002sce21317,
    author = "Barnes, M. Elizabeth and Brownell, Sara E.",
    title = "Experiences and practices of evolution instructors at Christian universities that can inform culturally competent evolution education",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Science Education",
    abstract = "Students' religious beliefs and religious cultures have been shown to be the main factors predicting whether they will accept evolution, yet college biology instructors teaching evolution at public institutions often have religious beliefs and cultures that are different from their religious students. This difference in religious beliefs and cultures may be a barrier to effective evolution education. To explore when evolution instructors have similar religious cultures and beliefs as their students, we interviewed 32 evolution instructors at Christian universities nationwide about their practices and experiences teaching evolution. Christian university instructors emphasized teaching for acceptance of evolution while holding an inclusive teaching philosophy that they perceived led to a safe environment for students. Additionally, almost all instructors reported using practices that have been shown to increase student acceptance of evolution and reduce student conflict between evolution and religion. Further, we found that these instructors perceived that their own religious backgrounds have guided their decisions to teach evolution to their students in a culturally competent way. We discuss how these data, combined with past research literature on public college instructors, indicate that cultural competence could be a useful new framework for promoting effective evolution education in higher education institutions.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21317",
    doi = "10.1002/sce.21317",
    openalex = "W2768686526"
}

This article examines the sources of ideological skepticism about two issues where there is a scientific consensus: climate change and evolution. The results indicate that self-identified conservatives doubt global warming in large part because of elite rhetoric, but that evolution beliefs are unrelated to reception of political discourse. News reception is perhaps the strongest predictor of conservatives’ climate change skepticism, but has no influence on their aversion to evolution. Moreover, the article leverages three sources of variation in elite discourse on climate change—temporal, cross-national, and experimental—to show that changes in the prevalence of ideological cues strongly affect public opinion about global warming. Politically attentive conservatives, in fact, were more likely to believe scientists about global warming than liberals were in the 1990s before the media depicted climate change as a partisan issue. The United States is also the only nation where political interest significantly predicts both conservatives’ skepticism about, and liberals’ belief in, climate change. Finally, evidence from a national survey experiment suggests that Americans would be less skeptical of manmade global warming if more Republicans in Congress believed in it, but a growing Congressional consensus about evolution would not diminish doubts about its existence.

@article{doi1010801058460920171380092,
    author = "Tesler, Michael",
    title = "Elite Domination of Public Doubts About Climate Change (Not Evolution)",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Political Communication",
    abstract = "This article examines the sources of ideological skepticism about two issues where there is a scientific consensus: climate change and evolution. The results indicate that self-identified conservatives doubt global warming in large part because of elite rhetoric, but that evolution beliefs are unrelated to reception of political discourse. News reception is perhaps the strongest predictor of conservatives’ climate change skepticism, but has no influence on their aversion to evolution. Moreover, the article leverages three sources of variation in elite discourse on climate change—temporal, cross-national, and experimental—to show that changes in the prevalence of ideological cues strongly affect public opinion about global warming. Politically attentive conservatives, in fact, were more likely to believe scientists about global warming than liberals were in the 1990s before the media depicted climate change as a partisan issue. The United States is also the only nation where political interest significantly predicts both conservatives’ skepticism about, and liberals’ belief in, climate change. Finally, evidence from a national survey experiment suggests that Americans would be less skeptical of manmade global warming if more Republicans in Congress believed in it, but a growing Congressional consensus about evolution would not diminish doubts about its existence.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092",
    doi = "10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092",
    openalex = "W2765635701",
    references = "doi1041599780674042971"
}

This study investigated students’ perceptions of the study of evolution in a small conservative Christian college. Students’ interest in the subject is influenced by several factors, including prior exposure to the material, students’ belief system, and the instructors’ attitudes towards the subject. These factors also determine the ability of students to understand, discuss, and analyze evolutionary-leaning arguments. Participants were students in a Foundations of Biology class. They completed a survey instrument that was administered by the College’s Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. Analysis of the results indicate students are interested in the material, think it is important to study, and value discussing these issues in a supportive Christian environment. Implications for strengthening faith integration and student intellectual growth are discussed.

@article{doi1010801065621920181520663,
    author = "Navia, Benjamin and Mbungu, David and Coria‐Navia, Anneris",
    title = "Student Perception on the Study of Evolution in a General Biology Course in a Christian College",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "Journal of Research on Christian Education",
    abstract = "This study investigated students’ perceptions of the study of evolution in a small conservative Christian college. Students’ interest in the subject is influenced by several factors, including prior exposure to the material, students’ belief system, and the instructors’ attitudes towards the subject. These factors also determine the ability of students to understand, discuss, and analyze evolutionary-leaning arguments. Participants were students in a Foundations of Biology class. They completed a survey instrument that was administered by the College’s Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. Analysis of the results indicate students are interested in the material, think it is important to study, and value discussing these issues in a supportive Christian environment. Implications for strengthening faith integration and student intellectual growth are discussed.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219.2018.1520663",
    doi = "10.1080/10656219.2018.1520663",
    openalex = "W2912404127",
    references = "crossref2008science"
}

It has been nearly a century since the state of Tennessee prosecuted John Thomas Scopes in the so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” (1925). When the Volunteer State passed the Butler Act prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ACLU found their accomplice in substitute biology teacher John Scopes to challenge the constitutionality of the law. As is well documented, the lead defense attorney Clarence Darrow cornered the lead prosecutor William Jennings Bryan into pitting the Bible against science. Scopes lost the case and $100, but the most significant loss was intellectualism within evangelicalism. Since Tennessee v. Scopes, the rift between science and faith has only grown wider and more profound.In the decades to follow numerous efforts have been made to demonstrate the importance for Christians—Evangelicals, in particular—of embracing critical thinking and empirical inquiry. Among the most formative works are Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954); George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (1987); Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (1992); Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994); Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey (2006); and Alvin Plantinga, Science, Religion, and Naturalism: Where the Conflict Really Lies (2011). As important as each of these (and others) are for drawing attention to the science-faith divide, few of these authors provide constructive solutions for the average layperson entrenched in their crusade of defending the Bible against their archnemesis, science.For most of these crusaders, the chief concern is biblical authority over scientific theory. They have been led to believe that the declarations of the Bible and the assertions of science are diametrically opposed to each other. Understandably, due to the rigors of mastering both biblical studies (ancient history, archaeology, biblical languages, philology, and textual criticism, among other things) and the empirical sciences (astronomy, chemistry, microbiology, genetics, geology, and zoology, to name a few), very few have the capacity to navigate the intricacies of each field, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation.For the past two decades an interdisciplinary team of scholars at Wheaton College has been teaching the general education course Theories of Origins. The course’s instructors, Robert C. Bishop (physics), Larry L. Funck (chemistry), Raymond J. Lewis (biology), Stephen O. Moshier (geology), and John H. Walton (OT) collated their notes and lectures into the textbook Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective. According to the authors, “perceived tensions between scientific and biblical accounts of origins are defused when (1) the cultural-historical contexts of biblical text are understood, (2) a comprehensive trinitarian doctrine of creation is explored and applied, and (3) the powers and limits of science and theology are properly defined and their historical engagement is discussed” (p. 2). The aim of the book is not only to denounce the science-faith divide as unnecessary but also to offer its readers the tools to span the divide.As a book designed for classroom use through decades of use as a textbook, it is not surprising that Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins exhibits a logical sequence in its structure. Like any good course textbook, Theories of Origins begins by addressing methodological issues. Chapter one focuses on issues of biblical interpretation, especially as it pertains to scientific concerns. Chapter two presents a trinitarian theological framework of creation. Chapter three deals with epistemology, and chapter four concludes the methodological introduction by outlining various models for harmonizing science and theology. The book then shifts its focus to a detailed discussion of the origins of the cosmos, the geologic history of the earth, life on earth, species and diversity of life, and human origins. A concluding postscript helps students move from creation to creation care and re-creation.Thanks to the interdisciplinary collaboration of the Wheaton faculty, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins amasses an impressive amount of material from a broad range of subjects. The authors have done a remarkable job of tackling complex themes and topics in a digestible fashion for non–science specialists. Since it is geared toward the uninitiated, it does not assume extensive prior knowledge of any one subdiscipline. Each chapter begins by defining terms and relating new information to experiences and ideas most students would have encountered at some point in their past. More complex ideas are illustrated with more than 200 graphs, charts, pictures, or other illustrations. The appendix includes a glossary of approximately 250 terms, a subject index, and a scriptural index. Perhaps the most useful component of the book is that, throughout, the authors weave a theological assessment of the scientific data, helping students answer the question, “where is God?” in the evolutionary process of the origins of life.Despite my overwhelmingly positive assessment of Theories of Origins, it has a few limitations of which potential instructors should be made aware. First, this book is unapologetically designed for use in a Christian (specifically, evangelical) educational setting. Although the science-faith dichotomy is aptly present among the student bodies at secular institutions as well, this book would not be suitable for those contexts. Second, few institutions have the faculty resources available to team-teach a Theories in Origins course Wheaton does. Nonetheless, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins could still be used at any institution where one Bible faculty member and one science faculty member are willing to partner. Third, the list price of $75 is significantly higher than most standard textbooks in a biblical studies course. However, with respect to textbooks in the empirical sciences, the cost is more than reasonable.Since the evangelical community is still suffering from the aftermath of the Scopes Monkey Trial, it would behoove many institutions of Christian higher education to consider adding to their general education curriculum a course that helps students navigate biblical interpretation in light of modern scientific theory. For those that do, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins provides a first-rate textbook around which instructors can develop the course.

@article{doi105325bullbiblrese3010112,
    author = "Greenwood, Kyle R.",
    title = "Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Bulletin for Biblical Research",
    abstract = "It has been nearly a century since the state of Tennessee prosecuted John Thomas Scopes in the so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” (1925). When the Volunteer State passed the Butler Act prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ACLU found their accomplice in substitute biology teacher John Scopes to challenge the constitutionality of the law. As is well documented, the lead defense attorney Clarence Darrow cornered the lead prosecutor William Jennings Bryan into pitting the Bible against science. Scopes lost the case and $100, but the most significant loss was intellectualism within evangelicalism. Since Tennessee v. Scopes, the rift between science and faith has only grown wider and more profound.In the decades to follow numerous efforts have been made to demonstrate the importance for Christians—Evangelicals, in particular—of embracing critical thinking and empirical inquiry. Among the most formative works are Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954); George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (1987); Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (1992); Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994); Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey (2006); and Alvin Plantinga, Science, Religion, and Naturalism: Where the Conflict Really Lies (2011). As important as each of these (and others) are for drawing attention to the science-faith divide, few of these authors provide constructive solutions for the average layperson entrenched in their crusade of defending the Bible against their archnemesis, science.For most of these crusaders, the chief concern is biblical authority over scientific theory. They have been led to believe that the declarations of the Bible and the assertions of science are diametrically opposed to each other. Understandably, due to the rigors of mastering both biblical studies (ancient history, archaeology, biblical languages, philology, and textual criticism, among other things) and the empirical sciences (astronomy, chemistry, microbiology, genetics, geology, and zoology, to name a few), very few have the capacity to navigate the intricacies of each field, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation.For the past two decades an interdisciplinary team of scholars at Wheaton College has been teaching the general education course Theories of Origins. The course’s instructors, Robert C. Bishop (physics), Larry L. Funck (chemistry), Raymond J. Lewis (biology), Stephen O. Moshier (geology), and John H. Walton (OT) collated their notes and lectures into the textbook Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective. According to the authors, “perceived tensions between scientific and biblical accounts of origins are defused when (1) the cultural-historical contexts of biblical text are understood, (2) a comprehensive trinitarian doctrine of creation is explored and applied, and (3) the powers and limits of science and theology are properly defined and their historical engagement is discussed” (p. 2). The aim of the book is not only to denounce the science-faith divide as unnecessary but also to offer its readers the tools to span the divide.As a book designed for classroom use through decades of use as a textbook, it is not surprising that Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins exhibits a logical sequence in its structure. Like any good course textbook, Theories of Origins begins by addressing methodological issues. Chapter one focuses on issues of biblical interpretation, especially as it pertains to scientific concerns. Chapter two presents a trinitarian theological framework of creation. Chapter three deals with epistemology, and chapter four concludes the methodological introduction by outlining various models for harmonizing science and theology. The book then shifts its focus to a detailed discussion of the origins of the cosmos, the geologic history of the earth, life on earth, species and diversity of life, and human origins. A concluding postscript helps students move from creation to creation care and re-creation.Thanks to the interdisciplinary collaboration of the Wheaton faculty, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins amasses an impressive amount of material from a broad range of subjects. The authors have done a remarkable job of tackling complex themes and topics in a digestible fashion for non–science specialists. Since it is geared toward the uninitiated, it does not assume extensive prior knowledge of any one subdiscipline. Each chapter begins by defining terms and relating new information to experiences and ideas most students would have encountered at some point in their past. More complex ideas are illustrated with more than 200 graphs, charts, pictures, or other illustrations. The appendix includes a glossary of approximately 250 terms, a subject index, and a scriptural index. Perhaps the most useful component of the book is that, throughout, the authors weave a theological assessment of the scientific data, helping students answer the question, “where is God?” in the evolutionary process of the origins of life.Despite my overwhelmingly positive assessment of Theories of Origins, it has a few limitations of which potential instructors should be made aware. First, this book is unapologetically designed for use in a Christian (specifically, evangelical) educational setting. Although the science-faith dichotomy is aptly present among the student bodies at secular institutions as well, this book would not be suitable for those contexts. Second, few institutions have the faculty resources available to team-teach a Theories in Origins course Wheaton does. Nonetheless, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins could still be used at any institution where one Bible faculty member and one science faculty member are willing to partner. Third, the list price of $75 is significantly higher than most standard textbooks in a biblical studies course. However, with respect to textbooks in the empirical sciences, the cost is more than reasonable.Since the evangelical community is still suffering from the aftermath of the Scopes Monkey Trial, it would behoove many institutions of Christian higher education to consider adding to their general education curriculum a course that helps students navigate biblical interpretation in light of modern scientific theory. For those that do, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins provides a first-rate textbook around which instructors can develop the course.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5325/bullbiblrese.30.1.0112",
    doi = "10.5325/bullbiblrese.30.1.0112",
    openalex = "W4210759086"
}

@misc{branch2021creationism,
    author = "Branch, Glenn",
    title = "Creationism, Evolution, and Public Education",
    year = "2021",
    booktitle = "Bloomsbury Religion in North America",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350971097.004",
    doi = "10.5040/9781350971097.004"
}

As detailed in a Letter published in Science in 2017, the adherents of creationism and intelligent design are still active in promoting their biblical-literalist views of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. In this contribution, we take a look at this ideological phenomenon in the USA and analyze the philosophical roots of this ongoing movement. Specifically, we discuss Vernon Kellogg’s book entitled Headquarters Nights (1917) with reference to the German ‘Allmacht’ (English—omnipotence) and Darwinian evolution to demonstrate how this publication bolstered the development of active anti-evolutionism in the USA among American fundamentalist Christians, inclusive of the Intelligent Design (ID)-agenda. The current activities of creationist associations in the USA and Germany are summarized, with reference to a new pro-ID-group established in Austria in 2019 that is sponsored by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington (USA).

@article{doi101007s1206402100341x,
    author = "Watts, Elizabeth and Kutschera, U.",
    title = "On the historical roots of creationism and intelligent design: German Allmacht and Darwinian evolution in context",
    year = "2021",
    journal = "Theory in Biosciences",
    abstract = "As detailed in a Letter published in Science in 2017, the adherents of creationism and intelligent design are still active in promoting their biblical-literalist views of the origin and evolution of life on Earth. In this contribution, we take a look at this ideological phenomenon in the USA and analyze the philosophical roots of this ongoing movement. Specifically, we discuss Vernon Kellogg’s book entitled Headquarters Nights (1917) with reference to the German ‘Allmacht’ (English—omnipotence) and Darwinian evolution to demonstrate how this publication bolstered the development of active anti-evolutionism in the USA among American fundamentalist Christians, inclusive of the Intelligent Design (ID)-agenda. The current activities of creationist associations in the USA and Germany are summarized, with reference to a new pro-ID-group established in Austria in 2019 that is sponsored by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington (USA).",
    url = "https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12064-021-00341-x.pdf",
    doi = "10.1007/s12064-021-00341-x",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "157-168",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "2",
    semanticscholar_id = "9ef4d84d670bd64a223da364ae2cec13f9a129d1",
    volume = "140",
    references = "doi101007s1206401301872, doi102307494434"
}

There has been little consideration in the science education literature of schools or curricula that advocate creationism. Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) is among the world's largest providers of creationist science materials with a curriculum divided into a system of workbooks which students complete at their own speed. This article examines the ways in which ACE presents particular areas of science that it considers to be contentious, namely evolution and climate change. The ACE curriculum has recently been rewritten, and we show that, like previous editions, the current curriculum relies on rote memorisation to the exclusion of other styles of learning, and that information presented is often misleading or distorted. Religious explanations of natural phenomena are sometimes given in place of scientific ones, and creationist assumptions are inserted into lessons not directly related to evolution or the Big Bang. Those who reject creationism are depicted as making an immoral choice. ACE's recent curricula also add material denying the role of humans in climate change. It is argued that both the teaching methods and content of the ACE curriculum place students at an educational disadvantage.

@article{doi101007s1142202310187y,
    author = "Scaramanga, Jenna and Reiß, Michael",
    title = "Evolutionary stasis: creationism, evolution and climate change in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "Cultural Studies of Science Education",
    abstract = "There has been little consideration in the science education literature of schools or curricula that advocate creationism. Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) is among the world's largest providers of creationist science materials with a curriculum divided into a system of workbooks which students complete at their own speed. This article examines the ways in which ACE presents particular areas of science that it considers to be contentious, namely evolution and climate change. The ACE curriculum has recently been rewritten, and we show that, like previous editions, the current curriculum relies on rote memorisation to the exclusion of other styles of learning, and that information presented is often misleading or distorted. Religious explanations of natural phenomena are sometimes given in place of scientific ones, and creationist assumptions are inserted into lessons not directly related to evolution or the Big Bang. Those who reject creationism are depicted as making an immoral choice. ACE's recent curricula also add material denying the role of humans in climate change. It is argued that both the teaching methods and content of the ACE curriculum place students at an educational disadvantage.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-023-10187-y",
    doi = "10.1007/s11422-023-10187-y",
    openalex = "W4376959771",
    references = "doi101177000494419303700305"
}